Anonymity should be judicially preserved in special cases that are in the public interest. It's pretty clear from the subject matter posted that the public interest is not being served, and therefore there is no need to preserve anonymity.
One of the three forms of defamation in California is "impugning the chastity of a woman." Another is accusing someone of a crime (outside the context of an actual complaint to law enforcement). If "skank" means "prostitute" then it qualifies on both counts.
Sorry, Charlie, you don't just get to accuse people of being prostitutes because you're anonymous.
You have a right to anonymity. You forfeit it the instant you use it to commit a crime or defame someone. The problem is, people have gotten so used to being able to act with impunity that the Internet has become a thoroughly nasty place (the Arpanet was never this bad), and they think it's now their God-given right to call anybody any name they like. It about damn time these jerks were outed and made to take responsibility for their actions.
A question, would any of you think it appropriate to consider as defamation a picture of a guy grabbing his crotch with a caption reading, "gay butt-fucking faggot"? I think the very first thing that one would consider here, were that the author of the caption was not intending to make a statement of fact regarding the person's sexual orientation... yet apparently this judge feels that the same form of patently offensive speech against a woman is somehow a statement of fact.
The author's intention is not at issue. What is at issue is how it is interpreted by the public. It would certainly be defamation in Iran, where homosexuality will get you the death penalty. It's not in California, where calling someone a homosexual is no more injurious than calling him or her "blue-eyed." One may not care for it, but one cannot sue over it.
Personally, I think women ought to sue. I think taking a picture of someone and labeling it "skank" or "whore" is despicable and deserves to be punished, and if a few financially valuable websites went down in flames as a result, and a few people lost their houses, the others might clean up their acts. Free speech does not extend to defamation, nor should it.
Yeah, I'm going to allow my computing and data storage to be dependent on large numbers of strangers, some of them hostile to me. No thank you. The Internet is handy for looking things up on and sending messages to people. Low-importance collective activity like SETI? Fine. But it is dangerously vulnerable for critical operations. I hope the people in charge of things like national electrical infrastructure are aware of that...
I agree that sexual accusations are usually the first place that men go when insulting women, but not in absolutely every case, and not all insults aimed at women are sexually based. "Bitch" isn't sexual -- it implies viciousness. "Hag," "slattern," and "sloven" are three more. "Slut" actually used to mean "slovenly person" -- "dust mice" in England used to be known as "slut's wool" -- but has since taken on a sexual connotation.
People might have called Margaret Thatcher a bitch, but to call her a slut or a whore would just be ridiculous.
What about women's insults for other women? My guess is that they are usually based on looks or taste.
It's not a question of "accusation." In a civil case, the plaintiff has the right to know who it is that is causing him harm -- and you can't claim "privacy" as a way of shielding yourself from responsibility. If you publish something about someone else, you are responsible for what you say, and you should be required to stand behind it. If you want to keep your privacy, restrict your remarks to subjects that you can't defame, such as yourself.
Writing that someone is a "ho" isn't a crime, but it's probably defamation in many jurisdictions. In California, for example, impugning the chastity of a woman is defamation -- and I suspect that applies whether she's a "public figure" or not.
Whatever right you may think you have to anonymity -- a dubious concept, just because you're used to it doesn't make it law -- it comes to an end when you defame someone. If you want to be anonymous, then behave yourself. Otherwise, man up and take responsibility for your actions.
Anonymity is valuable in repressive regimes and when people need certain kinds of assistance -- like gay teenagers or people seeing advice about venereal diseases. But most of the time, it's pernicious.
When you take wood and heat it in such a way that almost only pure carbon is left, it's called charcoal. I bet they avoided that little term because it doesn't sound nearly as cool (or strong) as wood.
Someone with a PhD is perfectly entitled to call themselves Dr. at all times, regardless of circumstances, and common sense doesn't enter into it. My father has one. He calls himself Dr. when buying plane tickets, filling out medical forms, introducing himself to others, and at any other time when someone asks him for his honorific.
Now I can't get that song out of my head again. "LHCB sees where the anti-matter's gone. ALICE looks at collisions of lead ions. CMS and ATLAS are two of a kind. They're looking for whatever new particles they can find..."
I loved Heinlein as a kid. My respect for him plummeted when he had a female character that we were supposed to identify with marry a guy who had raped and tortured her ("Friday").
You should have some things you both enjoy together, and some things that are just "your thing."
But actually the biggest problems early on arise not from power issues (you are reading the wrong books), but from money issues and in-laws. Be sure you both have the same attitudes about spending and saving.
Suppose I acknowledge that the OLPC foundation was screwed up internally. That still doesn't justify Microsoft and Intel sabotaging the project.
Microsoft and Intel's offer of "help" came with a lot of conditions. Negroponte accepted it. He got reamed. So much for their charitable motivations.
And accusing me of having a "disease" is just stupid ad hominem flamebaiting. If I were to sink to your level, I'd call you a Microsoft apologist fanboy.
I'm not a big fan of Negroponte, but both Intel and Microsoft went out of their way to kill this project -- telling outrageous lies to potential developing-world customers in order to put them off it. When did either of them make a product with a fraction of the innovation and convenience that the XO exhibits? Negroponte did a deal with the Devil in order to keep the thing afloat, and it went wrong on him, as deals with the Devil usually do. But the fact that two gigantic for-profit corporations were so greedy that they were prepared to kill a charitable little startup just on the off-chance that it might deny them a few low-margin sales, is simply disgraceful. If they'd had any heart at all, they'd have said, "Great! How can we help?" and turned it into a big PR bonus for themselves.
Mind you, it doesn't surprise me coming from Microsoft; I've had dealings with them in the past. But I thought better of Intel.
I have yet to hear an ETHICAL reason why human cloning is wrong. There are certainly genetic issues -- the gene pool as a whole is better off if it's mixed up -- but people seem to freak utterly out at the notion of human cloning. Do they think we're gonna use them for food, or what?
Slashdot Mirror
Anonymity should be judicially preserved in special cases that are in the public interest. It's pretty clear from the subject matter posted that the public interest is not being served, and therefore there is no need to preserve anonymity.
One of the three forms of defamation in California is "impugning the chastity of a woman." Another is accusing someone of a crime (outside the context of an actual complaint to law enforcement). If "skank" means "prostitute" then it qualifies on both counts.
Sorry, Charlie, you don't just get to accuse people of being prostitutes because you're anonymous.
You have a right to anonymity. You forfeit it the instant you use it to commit a crime or defame someone. The problem is, people have gotten so used to being able to act with impunity that the Internet has become a thoroughly nasty place (the Arpanet was never this bad), and they think it's now their God-given right to call anybody any name they like. It about damn time these jerks were outed and made to take responsibility for their actions.
If you want your atmospheric phenomena to be taken seriously, don't give them names that belong in an Austin Powers movie.
A question, would any of you think it appropriate to consider as defamation a picture of a guy grabbing his crotch with a caption reading, "gay butt-fucking faggot"? I think the very first thing that one would consider here, were that the author of the caption was not intending to make a statement of fact regarding the person's sexual orientation... yet apparently this judge feels that the same form of patently offensive speech against a woman is somehow a statement of fact.
The author's intention is not at issue. What is at issue is how it is interpreted by the public. It would certainly be defamation in Iran, where homosexuality will get you the death penalty. It's not in California, where calling someone a homosexual is no more injurious than calling him or her "blue-eyed." One may not care for it, but one cannot sue over it.
Personally, I think women ought to sue. I think taking a picture of someone and labeling it "skank" or "whore" is despicable and deserves to be punished, and if a few financially valuable websites went down in flames as a result, and a few people lost their houses, the others might clean up their acts. Free speech does not extend to defamation, nor should it.
Yeah, I'm going to allow my computing and data storage to be dependent on large numbers of strangers, some of them hostile to me. No thank you. The Internet is handy for looking things up on and sending messages to people. Low-importance collective activity like SETI? Fine. But it is dangerously vulnerable for critical operations. I hope the people in charge of things like national electrical infrastructure are aware of that...
I agree that sexual accusations are usually the first place that men go when insulting women, but not in absolutely every case, and not all insults aimed at women are sexually based. "Bitch" isn't sexual -- it implies viciousness. "Hag," "slattern," and "sloven" are three more. "Slut" actually used to mean "slovenly person" -- "dust mice" in England used to be known as "slut's wool" -- but has since taken on a sexual connotation.
People might have called Margaret Thatcher a bitch, but to call her a slut or a whore would just be ridiculous.
What about women's insults for other women? My guess is that they are usually based on looks or taste.
It's not a question of "accusation." In a civil case, the plaintiff has the right to know who it is that is causing him harm -- and you can't claim "privacy" as a way of shielding yourself from responsibility. If you publish something about someone else, you are responsible for what you say, and you should be required to stand behind it. If you want to keep your privacy, restrict your remarks to subjects that you can't defame, such as yourself.
Writing that someone is a "ho" isn't a crime, but it's probably defamation in many jurisdictions. In California, for example, impugning the chastity of a woman is defamation -- and I suspect that applies whether she's a "public figure" or not.
Whatever right you may think you have to anonymity -- a dubious concept, just because you're used to it doesn't make it law -- it comes to an end when you defame someone. If you want to be anonymous, then behave yourself. Otherwise, man up and take responsibility for your actions.
Anonymity is valuable in repressive regimes and when people need certain kinds of assistance -- like gay teenagers or people seeing advice about venereal diseases. But most of the time, it's pernicious.
Where's my damn kitten?
When you take wood and heat it in such a way that almost only pure carbon is left, it's called charcoal. I bet they avoided that little term because it doesn't sound nearly as cool (or strong) as wood.
Someone with a PhD is perfectly entitled to call themselves Dr. at all times, regardless of circumstances, and common sense doesn't enter into it. My father has one. He calls himself Dr. when buying plane tickets, filling out medical forms, introducing himself to others, and at any other time when someone asks him for his honorific.
Now I can't get that song out of my head again. "LHCB sees where the anti-matter's gone. ALICE looks at collisions of lead ions. CMS and ATLAS are two of a kind. They're looking for whatever new particles they can find..."
Argh!
There were no security measures whatsoever, and no need for them.
Clearly, something has happened since then that has caused a bunch of people to want to kill Americans. They didn't in 1960, and they do now.
I can't imagine what it was.
Irony 1, Yanks 0. As usual.
90s-era American science fiction movie starring Kurt Russell? Hardly!
I loved Heinlein as a kid. My respect for him plummeted when he had a female character that we were supposed to identify with marry a guy who had raped and tortured her ("Friday").
That's real helpful when you're at 38,000 feet and Mach 2.3, and your target is somewhere over the horizon. Yet another example of government waste.
You should have some things you both enjoy together, and some things that are just "your thing."
But actually the biggest problems early on arise not from power issues (you are reading the wrong books), but from money issues and in-laws. Be sure you both have the same attitudes about spending and saving.
It's the forge casting the giant gun they're going to use to shoot the spaceship at us.
Good thing we've got these handy microbes around. Martians weren't clued enough to wear space suits. Let's hope the Venusians are equally dumb.
Every fan of I'm Sorry, I Haven't a Clue knows all about it.
Next you'll be telling us that Japanese scientists have given Samantha a voice.
Suppose I acknowledge that the OLPC foundation was screwed up internally. That still doesn't justify Microsoft and Intel sabotaging the project.
Microsoft and Intel's offer of "help" came with a lot of conditions. Negroponte accepted it. He got reamed. So much for their charitable motivations.
And accusing me of having a "disease" is just stupid ad hominem flamebaiting. If I were to sink to your level, I'd call you a Microsoft apologist fanboy.
I'm not a big fan of Negroponte, but both Intel and Microsoft went out of their way to kill this project -- telling outrageous lies to potential developing-world customers in order to put them off it. When did either of them make a product with a fraction of the innovation and convenience that the XO exhibits? Negroponte did a deal with the Devil in order to keep the thing afloat, and it went wrong on him, as deals with the Devil usually do. But the fact that two gigantic for-profit corporations were so greedy that they were prepared to kill a charitable little startup just on the off-chance that it might deny them a few low-margin sales, is simply disgraceful. If they'd had any heart at all, they'd have said, "Great! How can we help?" and turned it into a big PR bonus for themselves.
Mind you, it doesn't surprise me coming from Microsoft; I've had dealings with them in the past. But I thought better of Intel.
I have yet to hear an ETHICAL reason why human cloning is wrong. There are certainly genetic issues -- the gene pool as a whole is better off if it's mixed up -- but people seem to freak utterly out at the notion of human cloning. Do they think we're gonna use them for food, or what?
It's the Silly Season, folks: that time of the year when the press decides there's nothing worth printing except nonsense.